DOCSLIB.ORG

Heraclitus 8

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

TWO HERACLITUS 8 Heraclitus has been a favorite subject for both ancient biographers and modern scholars, so there is a special need to separate the mysterious, dark philosopher from his mysterious, dark biography. The key point to keep in mind when considering the life, and especially the death, of this profound philosopher is the extraordinary antipathy, even hatred, that he roused in his readers and biographers. Their hostility, evident to a certain degree in the lives of all the philosophers, reaches unprecedented heights when Heraclitus dies buried in dung. To understand this death, the traditional biographical reaction to Heraclitus must be reviewed in detail, for it is the biographers’ reaction to and interpretation of Heraclitus’ work that account for this singular, and singularly hostile, death. DATE AND BACKGROUND For Heraclitus, most scholars accept the traditional floruit as given by Diogenes Laertius, from Apollodorus, as in the Sixty-Ninth Olympiad, 504/3–501/0 BCE.1 Heraclitus was a native of Ephesus in Asia Minor, and 59 60 DEATH BY PHILOSOPHY Diogenes Laertius gives his father’s name as Bloson or Heracon.2 Tradi- tionally, Heraclitus was considered a member of the local ruling family through his father (DL 9.1; Strabo 14.25) but was said to have renounced his inherited kingship (DL 9.6). For this information, Diogenes Laertius draws upon Antisthenes of Rhodes, who cites the renunciation as proof of Heraclitus’ “µεγαλ␸ρσυνη .” Hicks translates this as “magnanimity;”3 however, I doubt very much that magnanimity is what either Antisthenes or Diogenes Laertius had in mind.4 In the earlier section of the biography, Diogenes Laertius paired µεγαλ␸ρων with υπερ πτης , which suggests a more pejorative meaning to the use of µεγαλ␸ρσυνη in 9.6 that Hicks supplies. “Arrogance” or “superciliousness” comes closer to the mark.5 Diogenes Laertius is at pains throughout to illustrate that trait—call it pride, arrogance, superciliousness, haughtiness, or simple contempt—that was, to him and to others, most characteristic of Heraclitus and that was to culminate ultimately in complete misanthropy. Indeed, as Mouraview shows, the whole passage can be taken as a character study in arrogance.6 To explore the motives of this characterizations, then, will be our first step in understanding traditional reactions to Heraclitus and to the biography these reactions produced. THE DARK ONE OF EPHESUS In his lives in general, Diogenes Laertius supports his biographical state- ments with illustrative quotations taken from his subject’s work.7 To determine the validity of his characterization, we must first determine whether the quotations he selects are accurately used and germane. He begins his life of Heraclitus as follows: 1. Heraclitus, son of Bloson or, as some say, of Heracon, was an Ephesian. He was at this height in the Sixty-Ninth Olympiad. He was arrogant beyond all men, and contemptuous, as is clear from his writings, in which he says: (DL 9.1) Ηρα κλειτς Βλσωνς η, ως τινες, Ηρα κωντς Ε␸εσις. υ τς ηκµαε µεν κατατ ην ενα την καιε ηκστην λυµπια δα µεγαλ␸ρων δεγ εγνε παρ ντιναυνκαι υπερ πτης, ως καιε κ τυ συγγρα µµατς αυτυ δηλν, εν ω ι ␸ησι ... 2. Much learning does not teach wisdom, or else it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and then again Xenophanes and Hecateus. (fr. 40) [Diogenes Laertius continues: For he has it that,] Heraclitus 61 πλυµαθιη νν εειν υ διδα σκει᝽ Ησιδν γαρ αν εδιδαε και Πυθαγρην αυ τις τε !εν␸α νεα τε και Εκαταιν. 3. A single thing is wisdom, to understand knowledge, that which guides everything everywhere (fr. 41), [and that,] ειναι γαρ εν" τσ ␸ν, επιστασθαι γνωµην, τεη εκυ#ερνησε πα ντα διαπα ντων. 4. Homer deserves to be chased from the [poetic] contests and beaten with a stick, and Archilochus too. (fr. 42) τν τε $µηρν ε␸ασκεν αιν εκτων αγ ωνων εκ#α λλεσθαι και ραπ ιε- σθαι και Αριλν µιως . Diogenes Laertius thus opens his biography of Heraclitus with a very general statement about Heraclitus’ father and dates and moves immedi- ately to a character study of his subject. To illustrate Heraclitus’ personal- ity and its dominant trait, arrogance, he selects three seemingly unrelated Heraclitean statements to support his opening remarks.8 By these cita- tions, he means to establish Heraclitus’ character (his arrogance) firmly in his reader’s mind. Citations 2 and 4 both censure well-known poets and philosophers; to the biographical mind, Heraclitus reveals his arrogance in these statements by showing his contempt for Hesiod, Pythagoras, Xeno- phanes, Hecateus, Homer, and Archilochus. The reason for his contempt is given in citation 3: all these men have fallen short of the Heraclitean standard of true wisdom.9 To Heraclitus, true wisdom, which guides the universe, lies in understanding knowledge and not merely possessing it. Hesiod, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, and Hecataeus fall short in that they had much learning rather than true knowledge. Homer and Archilochus also fall short of this standard. Heraclitus further suggests that they should be expelled from the ranks of honor that they falsely hold. Thus it is a biographical interpretation of these fragments and their implications for Heraclitean personality, and not their philosophical in- tent, that interests Diogenes Laertius. He begins his biography by an- nouncing that Heraclitus was an arrogant man (citation 1). Proof is given through illustrative quotations. Heraclitus insultingly dismisses several well-known and highly regarded men of letters (citations 2–4) and sets himself up as arbiter of true wisdom (as opposed to mere erudition) and sole possessor of it (citation 3). But what of the Heraclitean and philo- sophical intent of these statements? If we do not, automatically, accept 62 DEATH BY PHILOSOPHY this traditional characterization based on traditional, biographical inter- pretation of these fragments, we must instead reconstruct the thought and philosophy that underlies them. Other fragments may provide the clues for Heraclitus’ thought. Since citations 2 through 4 deal with poets and philosophers, let us see what Heraclitus says elsewhere about such men.10 5. Of those whose discourse I have heard, none arrives at the realization that wisdom is set apart from all else. (fr. 108) κσων λγυς ηκυσα, υδε ις α ␸ικνειται ες τυτ, ωστε γινωσκειν τι σ␸ν εστι πα ντων κεωρισµενν . 6. For what intelligence or understanding have they? They believe in the bards of the people and use the mass as teacher, not knowing that, “Many are bad, few are good.” (fr. 104) τις γαρ αυτω ννς η ␸ρην; δηµων αιδι σι πειθνται και διδασκα λωι ρειωνται µιλωι υκ ειδ τες τι ι πλλι κακι, λιγι δε αγαθ ι . Citation 6 records Heraclitus’ dissatisfaction with the people, who rely upon and believe in poets and popular wisdom, without distinguishing the few good teachers from the many that are bad. Citation 5 speaks of his disenchantment with other philosophers, none of whom have arrived at the separate nature of wisdom (a statement that recalls the definition of wisdom in citation 3). Citations 5 and 6, then, explain the censure of poets and philosophers in citations 2 and 4. Such men not only fail to grasp the nature of wisdom, but compound their failure by leading the people away from true wisdom (since the people cannot distinguish by themselves between good and bad poets and philosophers.)11 The senti- ments recorded in citations 2 and 4 have their basis not in arrogance, as Diogenes Laertius would have us believe, but in philosophy. Heraclitus reproaches these men for their philosophical failings and for teaching false wisdom to the people. The separate nature of wisdom (i.e., wisdom that is personal and unique, separate from popular or cultural belief),12 defined in citation 3 and elucidated in citation 5, is his example of one way in which they fail. Heraclitus speaks not from contempt or arrogance, as Diogenes Laertius would have us believe, but from a philosophical and perhaps even didactic point of view. An objective reader, one who has no traditional or popular view to uphold, could as easily find in these fragments concern for the people, as contempt for others. Heraclitus 63 Diogenes Laertius continues his characterization of the arrogant phi- losopher by more illustrative quotation in the next section, 9.2, which begins: 7. Insolence, more than a fire, must be extinguished (fr. 43) [and] υ#ριν ρη σ#εννυναι µαλλν η πυρκαι&ην . 8. The people should fight for their laws, as for their walls (fr. 44) µα εσθαι ρητ ν δηµν υπ ερ τυ νµυ κωσπερ τειες . Heraclitus, as an arrogant man, here censures other people’s insolence, further proving Diogenes Laertius’ characterization. Citation 7 thus fits nearly into the scheme so far; people in their insolence think to possess the truth and even lead others astray with their version of it and for this they should be censured. It does, however, require some leap in thought from the personal and specific of the preceding citation 4 (Homer and Archilochus should be beaten and banished) to the impersonal and gen- eral of citation 7 (insolence really should be done away with.) But what of citation 8? The relationship that Diogenes Laertius makes between arro- gance, insolence, and the defense of one’s walls is not immediately appar- ent; it seems neither particularly applicable to the people of citations 2 and 4, nor logically or philosophically to fit with the thought of citation 7. It is, nonetheless, important for Diogenes Laertius’ characterization, for citation 8 brings in the first suggestion of the misanthropy for which
Recommended publications
  • The Cynicism of Diogenes

    The Cynicism of Diogenes

    DON‟T SHOOT THE MESSENGER! RETHINKING CYNICISM AND THE VALUE OF POLITICAL CRITIQUE by Suvi Maaria Irvine A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland December 2014 ©2014 Suvi Irvine All Rights Reserved Abstract: That Americans have become cynical about politics is often taken for granted in both popular and scholarly discourse. But what does it mean to be cynical? The answer to this question is far from simple and requires an investigation into the concept‟s origins, which reside in the ancient Greek philosophy known as classical Cynicism. Diogenes of Sinope, who remains the paradigmatic Cynic, was an abrasive figure in ancient Athens whose sneers and sarcasm where essential to his commitment to „living according to nature.‟ And for Diogenes, this meant living in accordance with the truth. He distrusted the social and political motivations of his fellow Athenians, and he called them out on their hypocrisy in ways that both amused and aggravated them. But what Diogenes did, above all, was demand room for honesty and the truth in the public sphere. I propose that his example is valuable in the context of contemporary American political culture, where honesty is rare and the truth is regularly disregarded. This dissertation presents an analysis of what cynicism can do for American political culture. I first address the question of what it means to be cynical and assess how much cynicism has changed since the days of Diogenes. While it may not mirror the original in all of its aspects, I argue that at root what it means to be cynical has not changed significantly, and that we can still identify cynics in our midst through their commitment to seeking and sarcastically speaking the truth.
  • The Fairy Tale Sleeping Beauty and the Year 2020 by Richard John Fraser Cooper

    The Fairy Tale Sleeping Beauty and the Year 2020 by Richard John Fraser Cooper

    The Fairy Tale Sleeping Beauty and the Year 2020 By Richard John Fraser Cooper Who has not been taken aback by the unprecedented events of this year? Going forward, we are undoubtedly in a time of change, but what kind of change, and what may be learnt from times of change that have gone before? Much can be learnt when we more deeply question the events of one hundred years ago and see the movement of spiritual history in relation to 2020. Rudolf Steiner has drawn our attention to looking at history through the lens of 100 years. Each 100- year phase carries 3 x 33 1/3 years within it, to make a total of one hundred. Steiner showed how the rhythm of 331/3 years mirrors the life of Christ on earth, from birth to crucifixion and resurrection. It is therefore important to explore how we may reconnect with what was initiated 100 years ago, in its positive and negative aspects, to gain insight into mankind’s struggle toward the Christ impulse. 100 years ago from the ominous outbreak of the Coronavirus Crisis in 2020, the official implementation of the Treaty of Versailles was signed on the 10 January, 1920. The Treaty, enforcing reparation payments on Germany for its war guilt, was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the historical events that would later unfold; notably, the rearmament of Germany leading to the Second World War and the world order that would later emerge after 1945. Quite aptly, the signing had taken place in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles, in Paris, France, being rather symbolic of an elite struggling to pursue their own national and established political concerns separated from any of the spiritual implications of the decisions before them.
  • Dan Beachy-Quick Anaximander of Miletus, Son of Prixiades…

    Dan Beachy-Quick Anaximander of Miletus, Son of Prixiades…

    In the deserts of the heart Let the healing fountain start, In the prison of his days Teach the free man how to praise FREE W.H. Auden POETRY Dan Beachy-Quick Anaximander Free Poetry publishes essays and poetry by today’s leading poets. These chapbooks are available free of Vol. 15 No. 5 April 2020 charge and without copyright. The editor encourages the reproduction of this chapbook and its free distribution, ad infinitum. For further information please contact the editor at: [email protected] Anaximander (trans. by) Dan Beachy-Quick Anaximander of Miletus, son of Prixiades… Anaximander, friend of Thales, and fellow citizen… Anaximander of Miletus, son of Priaxides, whose mind Thales birthed, his student and his successor… Diodorus of Ephesus, writing about Anaximander, says that he affected a tragic pomp (like a goat-skin swollen with wine) and donned clothes to look like holy man. 1 Eratosthenes says, and Hecataeus of Miletus agrees, that Homer and Anaximander were the first two to publish books on Geography. …among the Greeks of whom we know, he was the first to bring forth, from hard toil, a book on the nature of Nature. Like a child left waiting in a field, he wrote down a summary of his principle thoughts, which somehow Apollodorus of Athens happened to find. 2 He wrote , , ​On Nature​ ​The Wandering Earth​ ​Of​ ​the Constant Sources (in sequential order) , and one other book. ​ ​ Stars, Spheres​ 1. Diogenes Laertius 26. Aëtius 2. Strabo 27. Aëtius 3. Theophrastus 28. Aëtius 4. Diogenes Laertius 29. Aëtius 5. Strabo 30. Eudemus 6.
  • The Death of Heraclitus Fairweather, Janet Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1973; 14, 3; Proquest Pg

    The Death of Heraclitus Fairweather, Janet Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1973; 14, 3; Proquest Pg

    The Death of Heraclitus Fairweather, Janet Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1973; 14, 3; ProQuest pg. 233 The Death of Heraclitus Janet Fairweather ECENTLY there has been a revival of interest in a theory, Roriginally put forward by A. Gladisch,l about one ancient ac­ count of the death of Heraclitus. According to Neanthes of Cyzicus 2 Heraclitus, suffering from dropsy, attempted to cure him­ self by covering his body with manure and lying out in the sun to dry, but he was made unrecognizable by the dung covering and was finally eaten by dogs. Gladisch and others have seen in this anecdote a veiled allusion to a certain Zoroastrian ritual, described in the Videvdat (8.37f), in which a man who has come into contact with a corpse which has not been devoured by scavengers is supposed to rid himself of the polluting demon, Nasu the Druj, by lying on the ground, covering himself with bull's urine, and having some dogs brought to the scene. The fact that we find both in Neanthes' tale and in this ritual the use of bovine excreta, exposure of a man's body in the sun, and the inter­ vention of dogs has seemed to some scholars too remarkable to be coincidental. Gladisch and, following him, F. M. Cleve3 have seen in Neanthes' anecdote an indication that Heraclitus might have ordered a Zoroastrian funeral for himself. M. L. West,4 more cautiously and subtly, has suggested that the story of the manure treatment and the dogs could have originated as an inference from some allusion Hera­ clitus may have made to the purification ritual in a part of his work now lost, perhaps in connection with his sneer (fr.86 Marcovich=B 5 D/K) at people who attempt to rid themselves of blood pollution by spilling more blood.
  • A History of Cynicism

    A History of Cynicism

    A HISTORY OF CYNICISM Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com A HISTORY OF CYNICISM From Diogenes to the 6th Century A.D. by DONALD R. DUDLEY F,llow of St. John's College, Cambrid1e Htmy Fellow at Yale University firl mll METHUEN & CO. LTD. LONDON 36 Essex Street, Strand, W.C.2 Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com First published in 1937 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com PREFACE THE research of which this book is the outcome was mainly carried out at St. John's College, Cambridge, Yale University, and Edinburgh University. In the help so generously given to my work I have been no less fortunate than in the scenes in which it was pursued. I am much indebted for criticism and advice to Professor M. Rostovtseff and Professor E. R. Goodonough of Yale, to Professor A. E. Taylor of Edinburgh, to Professor F. M. Cornford of Cambridge, to Professor J. L. Stocks of Liverpool, and to Dr. W. H. Semple of Reading. I should also like to thank the electors of the Henry Fund for enabling me to visit the United States, and the College Council of St. John's for electing me to a Research Fellowship. Finally, to• the unfailing interest, advice and encouragement of Mr. M. P. Charlesworth of St. John's I owe an especial debt which I can hardly hope to repay. These acknowledgements do not exhaust the list of my obligations ; but I hope that other kindnesses have been acknowledged either in the text or privately.
  • Epicurus Epicurus Was Born in February 341 BCE

    Epicurus Epicurus Was Born in February 341 BCE

    Epicurus Epicurus was born in February 341 BCE. He earned his basic education in philosophy after four years of tutoring, and at the age of 18, Epicurus served in the military for two years in Athens. After completing his education, Epicurus began teaching around the Aegean, eventually settling back in Athens. There, he purchased some land and founded a school which was given the name of ‘The Garden’, for its construction in the garden of his house. The Garden soon became a notable institute for the progress of philosophical education, and it also held the exclusivity of being the first philosophical Greek institute that allowed women to take part in learning. Epicurus strongly advocated friendship as an important root for a happy and fulfilling life, and thus, his school provided the community with the opportunity to interact and form constructive relationships. Epicurus has played an extremely vital role in the progress of science as a discipline. Epicurus was the first Greek philosopher to attempt to break free society from religious superstitions by preaching that God does not punish or reward humans, and that a man’s sole objective should be to form a self-sufficient and happy life by surrounding oneself with reliable and cherished friends. Epicurus was a strong advocate of free will. The development of a pleasant and comfortable life, in his view, was the core purpose of life, and good and bad consequences could only be evaluated on the principles of pain and pleasure. Epicurus believed that whatever serves to provide pleasure can be termed as good, and whatever leads to discomfort can be termed as bad.
  • The Heraclitus Anecdote: De Partibus Animalium I 5.645A17-23

    The Heraclitus Anecdote: De Partibus Animalium I 5.645A17-23

    Ancient Philosophy 21 (2001) ©Mathesis Publications 1 The Heraclitus Anecdote: De Partibus Animalium i 5.645a17-23 Pavel Gregoric Chapter 5 of the first book of Aristotle’s De Partibus Animalium contains a short self-contained treatise (644b22-645a36) which has been characterised as a ‘protreptic to the study of animals’ (Peck in Aristotle 1937, 97). Such a charac- terisation of the treatise may be misleading, because Aristotle does not seem to have composed it in order to motivate his audience to go out in the field and study animals, but rather to kindle their interest in the scientific account of ani- mals which he is about to provide. It is reasonable to suppose that Aristotle’s audience, eager to learn something valuable and dignified, needed an explanation of why they should like to hear, amongst other animals, about sponges, snails, grubs, and other humble creatures which are displeasing even to look at, not to mention witnessing the dissections that might have accompanied Aristotle’s lec- tures on animals (cf. Bonitz 1870, 104a4-17; Lloyd 1978). Aristotle explains why such ignoble animals deserve a place in a scientific account of animals and he illustrates that with an anecdote about Heraclitus. So one must not be childishly repelled by the examination of the humbler animals. For in all things of nature there is some- thing wonderful. And just as Heraclitus is said to have spoken to the visitors who wanted to meet him and who stopped as they were approaching when they saw him warming himself by the oven (e‰don aÈtÚn yerÒmenon prÚw t“ fipn“)—he urged them to come in without fear (§k°leue går aÈtoÁw efisi°nai yarroËntaw), for there were gods there too (e‰nai går ka‹ §ntaËya yeoÊw)—so one must approach the inquiry about each animal without aversion, since in all of them there is something natural and beautiful.
  • A Philosophical Inquiry Into the Development of the Notion of Kalos Kagathos from Homer to Aristotle

    A Philosophical Inquiry Into the Development of the Notion of Kalos Kagathos from Homer to Aristotle

    The University of Notre Dame Australia ResearchOnline@ND Theses 2006 A philosophical inquiry into the development of the notion of kalos kagathos from Homer to Aristotle Geoffrey Coad University of Notre Dame Australia Follow this and additional works at: https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/theses Part of the Philosophy Commons COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further copying or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Do not remove this notice. Publication Details Coad, G. (2006). A philosophical inquiry into the development of the notion of kalos kagathos from Homer to Aristotle (Master of Philosophy (MPhil)). University of Notre Dame Australia. https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/theses/13 This dissertation/thesis is brought to you by ResearchOnline@ND. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of ResearchOnline@ND. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NOTION OF KALOS KAGATHOS FROM HOMER TO ARISTOTLE Dissertation submitted for the Degree of Master of Philosophy Geoffrey John Coad School of Philosophy and Theology University of Notre Dame, Australia December 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iv Declaration v Acknowledgements vi INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1: The Fish Hook and Some Other Examples 6 The Sun – The Source of Beauty 7 Some Instances of Lack of Beauty: Adolf Hitler and Sharp Practices in Court 9 The Kitchen Knife and the Samurai Sword 10 CHAPTER 2: Homer 17 An Historical Analysis of the Phrase Kalos Kagathos 17 Herman Wankel 17 Felix Bourriott 18 Walter Donlan 19 An Analysis of the Terms Agathos, Arete and Other Related Terms of Value in Homer 19 Homer’s Purpose in Writing the Iliad 22 Alasdair MacIntyre 23 E.
  • SCEPTICAL ARGUMENTATION and PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY: By

    SCEPTICAL ARGUMENTATION and PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY: By

    SCEPTICAL ARGUMENTATION AND PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY: TOPICS IN HELLENISTIC PHILOSOPHY by Máté Veres Submitted to Central European University Department of Philosophy In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Supervisor: Prof. Gábor Betegh CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2016 Table of contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 7 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 1. Keep calm and carry on: Sextan Pyrrhonism as a kind of philosophy ....... 17 1. Philosophy and inquiry ............................................................................................ 18 2. The road to Pyrrhonism ........................................................................................... 22 2.1. The 'origins' of scepticism (PH I. 12) ............................................................... 22 2.2. The goal of Pyrrhonism (PH I. 26 and 29)........................................................ 26 2.3. Men of talent ..................................................................................................... 34 3. The origin of Pyrrhonism ......................................................................................... 37 3.1. The Partisan Premise
  • Homer's Odyssey in the Hands of Its Allegorists: Many Paths to Explain the Cosmos

    Homer's Odyssey in the Hands of Its Allegorists: Many Paths to Explain the Cosmos

    Safari Grey Homer’s Odyssey in the Hands of its Allegorists: Many Paths to Explain the Cosmos Summary The allegorical exegetic tradition was arguably the most popular form of literary criticism in antiquity. Amongst the ancient allegorists we encounter a variety of names and philo- sophic backgrounds spanning from Pherecydes of Syros to Proclus the Successor. Many of these writers believed that Homer’s epics revealed philosophical doctrines through the means of hyponoia or ‘undermeanings’.Within this tradition was a focus on cosmological, cosmogonical and theological matters which attracted a variety of commentators despite their philosophical backgrounds. It is the intention of this paper to draw attention to two writers: Heraclitus, and Porphyry of Tyre. This paper also intends to demonstrate that the tradition of cosmic allegorical exegesis is still practiced in modern scholarship. Keywords: Homer; literary criticism; allegory; Heraclitus; Porphyry; cosmology; metaphor Die allegorische exegetische Tradition war wohl die populärste Form der Literaturkritik in der Antike. Unter den antiken Allegorien begegnen wir einer Vielzahl von Namen und phi- losophischen Hintergründen, die von Pherecydes von Syros bis zu Proclus der Nachfolger reichen. Viele dieser Autoren glaubten, Homers Epen enthüllten philosophische Lehren durch Hyponoie oder ,Unterschätzung‘. In dieser Tradition lag der Fokus auf kosmologi- schen, kosmogonischen und theologischen Fragen, die trotz ihrer philosophischen Hinter- gründe eine Vielzahl von Kommentatoren anzogen.
  • Aristotle and Plato on Friendship by John Von Heyking

    Aristotle and Plato on Friendship by John Von Heyking

    Digital Commons @ Assumption University Philosophy Department Faculty Works Philosophy Department 2017 The Form of Politics: Aristotle and Plato on Friendship by John Von Heyking Nalin Ranasinghe Assumption College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.assumption.edu/philosophy-faculty Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Ranasinghe, N. (2017). The Form of Politics: Aristotle and Plato on Friendship by John Von Heyking. International Political Anthropology 10(1): 39-55. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy Department at Digital Commons @ Assumption University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Department Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Assumption University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Form of Politics: Aristotle and Plato on Friendship by John Von Heyking Nalin Ranasinghe Abstract Heyking’s ascent from Aristotle to Plato implies that something Platonic was lost in Aristotle’s accounts of friendship and politics. Plato’s views on love and soul turn out to have more in common with early Christianity. Stressing differences between eros and thumos, using Voegelin’s categories to discuss the Platonic Good, and expanding on Heyking’s use of Hermes, I show how tragic culture and true politics can be further enhanced by refining erotic friendship, repudiating Augustinian misanthropy, positing minimum doctrines about soul and city, and basing reason on Hermes rather than Apollo. Keywords: Plato, Aristotle, Voegelin, Eros, Thumos, friendship, soul, Von Heyking Introduction John von Heyking’s book on friendship is as easy to read as it is hard to review.
  • DIOGENES of SINOPE Diogenes of Sinope (C

    DIOGENES of SINOPE Diogenes of Sinope (C

    DIOGENES OF SINOPE Diogenes of Sinope (c. 412‐323 BC), a contemporary of Plato and Aristotle, is considered the founder of the philosophical school of Cynicism. Concerned more with action than with words, he left no writings. What we know of his thought is what has been related to us by contempo‐ raries and later scholars. The most extensive account is from Diogenes Laertes, writing almost 500 years after Diogenes lived. LIFE OF DIOGENES OF SINOPE, THE CYNIC (404‐323 BC) RD BY DIOGENES LAERTIUS (3 CENTURY AD) Diogenes was a native of Sinope, son of Hicesius, a banker. Diocles relates that he went into exile because his father was entrusted with the money of the state and adulterated the coin‐ age. But Eubulides in his book on Diogenes says that Diogenes himself did this and was forced to leave home along with his father. Moreover Diogenes himself actually confesses in his Porde‐ lus that he adulterated the coinage. Some say that having been appointed to superintend the workmen he was persuaded by them, and that he went to Delphi or to the Delian oracle in his own city and inquired of Apollo whether he should do what he was urged to do. When the god gave him permission to alter the political currency, not understanding what this meant, he adulterated the state coinage, and when he was detected, according to some he was banished, while according to others he voluntarily quitted the city for fear of consequences. One version is that his father entrusted him with the money and that he debased it, in consequence of which the father was imprisoned and died, while the son fled, came to Delphi, and inquired, not whether he should falsify the coinage, but what he should do to gain the greatest reputation; and that then it was that he received the oracle.